Yours is fallacious reasoning based on the tenability/validity of a given religion and it's doctrinal source material. Your approach is to question and cast doubt (to question blind unverifiable trust) thereby casting doubt on the whole religion.

The greater point I have made (that you seem to not understand or simply do not know how to answer) is the I am not selling a specific religion nor doctrine. (Therefore your approach fails) I am telling you that anyone who humbles himself and a/s/k's as out lined in luke 11, will indeed find God Himself.

The trust in scripture is not based on the provenance of the text itself, but on a direct interaction with God.

If we can't "trust" God then their is no hope for us anyway.

To put it another way, how does one verify the validity of a treasure map? Though an intellectual comity that examines when and where it was written, the ink used, the place it was found by whom?? No absolutely not!

Why? Because none of that tells you whether or not the map does indeed lead to treasure. (Again checking the validity of the map/content, not its history.)
One could have the ability to trace a map back to its origins and it not mean they will find treasure. The only true test of a treasure map is to follow the map and dig precisely where it tells you to dig. Like wise one maybe able to trace their bible back to the original author, but if one follows what it says and can not find God their book is useless no matter how accurate the translation.

I don't understand really what do you want to say.

(27-04-2014 06:51 PM)viocjit Wrote: If the source or the text itself isn't important. Explain me why the ecclesiastic authorities finalised the books selection for their biblical canon (the catholic biblical canon) in the IVth session of the council of trent in "April , 8th , 1546" ?

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: becausethey like meand the rest of us are only responsible to what we have been given and can understand. For them it was to canonize what they understood to be truth.

Do you want to say ? they are like me.
You used the verb "understand".
Is it possible to understand a lie like truth ?

(27-04-2014 06:51 PM)viocjit Wrote: Also the Protestant haven't the same biblical canon than Catholic like the Orthodox Christians.

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: ahh, so? Again do the Protestants understand the bible and worship of God as the Catholics do? No, why?

Where you see division I see divine will being carried out. Our greatest command is to love God with all of our being. Because we are all different that 'love' that has been commanded will manifest itself in different ways.
These different ways manifest themselves in different expressions of faith.

Again in all bible translations we have the parable of the talents and the explanation of that parable is always the same. We are to be faithful to what God has given us. If He gives us catholism with un wavering faith in the system of belief then that is what we must be faithful to. And so on...

I have a question. If we're all different and that God gave us different possibilities to be a believer.

Explain me how a Psychopath can be faithful ?

(27-04-2014 06:51 PM)viocjit Wrote: There are many biblical canons. Therefore there are some sources that we can't trust.

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: only if you are so foolish to believe there their is only "one true version of Christianity" acceptable before God.

How accept God without accepted a version of Christianity ?

(27-04-2014 06:51 PM)viocjit Wrote: Do you think that the authors of canonical gospels (there are the same in all mainstream branch of Christianity) are Matthew , Mark , Luke and John ?

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: look sport I have studied the bible for going on 20 years now I know they are not the same. I'm not some life long catholic or Protestant who will be shocked by any 'biblical/historical' revelation that typically works for you.

I've looked at and accepted those changes and what's more I've come up with a very very simple explanation for them (it's the same one I am shooting your argument down with now.)

What's this very simple explanation ?

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: You would know this if you spent 1/2 as much time reading the bible itself rather than reading about the bible.

A compendium who contain mathematical mistakes like the next.

1 Chronicles 3:22 : count the numbers of sons.

(27-04-2014 06:51 PM)viocjit Wrote: You say that my example is invalid because establishing a relationship with God is nothing like founding a company.

yes here you are correct.

Quote:Therefore whats' the link between have an experience with God (speaking with him , hear him, pray etc... [I think that these experiences are illusions]) and founding a company ?

(27-04-2014 06:51 PM)viocjit Wrote: again through the Holy Spirit which is offered if one will humble himself and a/s/k as outlined in like 11.

Your misspelled Luke. How a Strong Atheist like me who have many evidences that there are no God(s) can convert himself to Christianity. If Christianity is true.

1.Explain me what make that Judaism was inspired by Zoroastrianism and Christianity by Judaism ?
2.Explain me that the first Jews weren't Monotheists theists ?
3.The majority of early Christians where believers in trinity or not ?

(27-04-2014 06:51 PM)viocjit Wrote: It was my mother and myself who permit me to know what's very cold , cold , heat and hot.
You want that I tell you an experience.
Read my precedent phrase.

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: did you miss the greater point or is this an attempt at a red herring?

If this is a red herring. I don't know that it is one.

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: You asked for an example where 'experience' trumps knowledge (or whatever point you were making at the time) I provided it, then I asked you to provide an example where experience looses to whatever it was you were trying to sell. Can you provide an example of this 'wonder knowledge' or not?

A day I was at school (it was between 2010 and 2013).
I was doing an exercise (I can't remember if it was French , History , English etc...). I didn't knew the answer.
At this moment I was remembering that I read
something about this topic. My answer was good.

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: indeed, and we are only responsible to interpret it the best we can.

How interpet it in the best way ?

(27-04-2014 06:51 PM)viocjit Wrote: Some Christians think that Genesis is litteral (Evangelicals Christians). Some Christians think that Genesis isn't litteral but the world creation explained in a metaphorical language like the Catholics pro-Vatican II who believe in Theistic evolution.

There are a singular point of origin but people interpret Bible differently accorded to their denomination , culture , personality etc...

The majority of Americans and Africans Christians are litteralist.
The majority of Western Europeans and Northern Europeans Christians interpet the Bible like a metaphorical text. (Many of them don't believe litteraly in Exodus when Moses separate the waters).

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: so?

People don't believe totally in the same things. They have common beliefs like the ressurection of Jesus (except fringe denominations of Christianity like some esoterical branches). But the majority of Christians of some countries like France don't believe that Genesis is litteraly true. This is the case for the majority of Christians in USA.
Also this is difficult (nor impossible) to find Christians who interpret the Bible with the same manner.
Therefore God is an illusion or not ?

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: begs the question (that seems to be your favorite logical fallacy)
The word 'so' in context should have compelled you to make your point known. It was an invitation for you to commit to an idea, so when I refute it you can't back peddle, and say I presume too much.

I'm not a native English speaker (My native language is French) therefore I didn't knew that we must use the word so? to
make know a point in all contexts. I have only the level B1 (my English level accorded to European Language Certificates).

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: Then rephrase your question in such as way as to not evoke a logical fallacy if you seek an answer.

I'm only asking a question.
I don't think that this is logical fallacy.

RE: Why do you trust the book of your religion ? (abrahamic religion only)

(29-04-2014 08:23 PM)viocjit Wrote: I don't understand really what do you want to say.

What part are you having difficulty with? If English is not your primary language then I will make an effort to not use english slang.

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: becausethey like meand the rest of us are only responsible to what we have been given and can understand. For them it was to canonize what they understood to be truth.

Quote:Do you want to say ? they are like me.

Ah, no. They like me is a term they describes a group of people like myself. Not really slang, just not commonly used term.

Quote:You used the verb "understand".
Is it possible to understand a lie like truth ?

Your Point seems to be predicated on what you thought to be a misuse of the term "They Like me." (Which was indeed a term you do not seem to be familiar with) Other wise I do not understand what you mean here.

Quote:I have a question. If we're all different and that God gave us different possibilities to be a believer. Explain me how a Psychopath can be faithful ?

The defination:
a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.

If God gave that person 1 milliliter of Humanity then it is to that milliliter in which he will be held responsiable.

Obviously the term as defined outlines one who is simply unsociable or has a tendency towards violence. One can be deemed a psycopath by soceity and still live a full and productive life. For one soceity's Psyco is another's Great leader or religious hero. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Bin laden, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, All were considered to be 'Unsociable and or has a tendency towards violence' In one soceities view.

Three of these 'Psyco's were great Christians.

Quote:How accept God without accepted a version of Christianity ?

Through what is outlined in Luke 11.

Quote:What's this very simple explanation ?

Don't you know what you have been argueing against?
Or do you just try and oppsoe what I say no matter what I say?

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: You would know this if you spent 1/2 as much time reading the bible itself rather than reading about the bible.

Quote:A compendium who contain mathematical mistakes like the next.

1 Chronicles 3:22 : count the numbers of sons.

You do understand we are speaking of Biblical Christianity right? And in Biblical Christianity, 'proof' of God does not come in the way of a book. It comes in the form of being provided direct access to God via the instructions provided in said book, thus verifying the book.

(27-04-2014 06:51 PM)viocjit Wrote: You say that my example is invalid because establishing a relationship with God is nothing like founding a company.

yes here you are correct.

Quote:Therefore whats' the link between have an experience with God (speaking with him , hear him, pray etc... [I think that these experiences are illusions]) and founding a company ?

(27-04-2014 06:51 PM)viocjit Wrote: again through the Holy Spirit which is offered if one will humble himself and a/s/k as outlined in like 11.

Quote:Your misspelled Luke.

So? appearently you were somehow able to cipher my meaning.. So how does a strong atheist like yourself cipher through a misspelled word if the word is completely misspelled and a different word (spelled correctly) is presented?
Could it have something to do with context and the EVIDENCE provided in said context?

Quote:How a Strong Atheist like me who have many evidences that there are no God(s) can convert himself to Christianity. If Christianity is true.

A strong proud atheist like you must first be willing to let go his FAITH is said evidences, just long enough to put that very same faith into Asking Seeking and Knocking as outlined in LUKE 11. If one can do this as Christ promised you will be given a measure of the Holy Spirit (God Himself) to point you to your next step. If you are faithful to what He has given to you, you will be given more, and a snow ball effect will take place.

Quote:1.Explain me what make that Judaism was inspired by Zoroastrianism and Christianity by Judaism ?

Answer: Did Judaism and Christianity borrow the Messiah, the resurrection, and final judgment from Zoroastrianism / Mithra? Many doctrines of the Christian faith have parallels in Zoroastrianism, i.e., the virgin birth, the son of God, and resurrection. Some scholars say that Zarathustra (a.k.a. Zoroaster) lived around 600-500 B.C. If that is the case, David, Isaiah and Jeremiah (all of whom mention the Messiah, the resurrection and the final judgment in their writings), lived and wrote before Zarathustra. Some scholars say that Zoroaster lived sometime between 1500 and 1200 B.C. If that is the case, the case for Christianity borrowing from Zoroastrianism would be stronger, but the fact is we don’t know when Zarathustra lived (hence the disagreement among scholars) and so this argument is speculative at best. The Greek historian Herodotus (5th century B.C.) doesn’t mention him in his treatise on the Medo-Persian religions, though Plato, who was born roughly around the time Herodotus died, does mention him in his Alcibiades (see Wikipedia’s entry on Zoroaster; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster).

But establishing when Zarathustra lived is only the first step. Next, we have to establish what he actually taught (as opposed to what modern Zoroastrianism claims he taught). The only source for Zarathustra’s teachings is the Avesta, and the oldest copies we have of the Avesta date from the 13th century A.D. The late date for this collection of writings lends no support whatsoever to the idea that Christians borrowed from Zoroastrianism (the oldest copies of the Jewish Scriptures which we have today date centuries before Christ and the oldest complete manuscripts of the Christian Scriptures we have date from the 4th century A.D.).

This looks to be another case of skeptics citing a pre-Christian religion, assuming that the post-Christian form of the religion (which we know about) has remained faithful to the pre-Christian form of the religion (which we know nothing about), and speculating that the similarities between the religion and Christianity are due to Christianity borrowing from the religion in question. It’s a philosophical argument without solid evidence to back it up. Have we any good reason not to suppose that it was Zoroastrianism which borrowed from Christianity and not vice versa? We know that Zoroastrianism borrowed freely from the polytheistic faiths of the region in which it became popular. Mithra, for example, was a Persian god who found a prominent role in Zoroastrianism. Mithra’s Hindu counterpart is the god Mitra.

So here is a perfect example of your faith in "Strong Atheist evidence." In order for you to believe Zoroastrianism was the source of Judaism you have to believe the 13th century AD work (The oldest source of material we have on Zoroastrianism is 100% accurate.

Quote:2.Explain me that the first Jews weren't Monotheists theists ?

Why? The bible records many weren't.
That was the reason for so much of their striff and judgement (The books of Judges.)

Quote:3.The majority of early Christians where believers in trinity or not ?

The word trinity is a medevil contruct, how could they believe in the rules of a doctrine that described their belief, if said doctrine had not been defined yet?

Wow, I hope these weren't your best examples of your strong Atheist 'faith.' If they are you might realize your 1/2 way to being a Christian already!

Quote:If this is a red herring. I don't know that it is one.

A red herring is another logical fallacy. This fallacy is where one attempts to introduce a secondary topic so that the secondary topic distracts from the first. Example:
You asked for an example of how experience can trump knoweledge.

I provided one concerning being burned.

Your response was to tell me a story about your mother teaching you the difference between hot and cold.

Quote:A day I was at school (it was between 2010 and 2013).
I was doing an exercise (I can't remember if it was French , History , English etc...). I didn't knew the answer.
At this moment I was remembering that I read
something about this topic. My answer was good.

So no... You can not provide an example of 'knoweledge' trumping experience?

Maybe because "Knoweledge" Comes from Experience!!!

Quote:How interpet it in the best way ?

not sure what your asking.

Quote:People don't believe totally in the same things. They have common beliefs like the ressurection of Jesus (except fringe denominations of Christianity like some esoterical branches). But the majority of Christians of some countries like France don't believe that Genesis is litteraly true. This is the case for the majority of Christians in USA.
Also this is difficult (nor impossible) to find Christians who interpret the Bible with the same manner.

So?

Quote:Therefore God is an illusion or not ?

Why would God be an illusion simply because people understand Him differently?

God is infinate, so if we each understand a small/finite section of who/what God is does it mean God can not exist because we (Finite) do not have a complete understanding of an infinite God?

Again we are simply faithful to what we have been given over to understand. Because we are all alittle different our knoweledge of God will all be alittle different.

Quote:I'm not a native English speaker (My native language is French) therefore I didn't knew that we must use the word so? to
make know a point in all contexts. I have only the level B1 (my English level accorded to European Language Certificates).

Quote:I'm only asking a question.
I don't think that this is logical fallacy.

RE: Why do you trust the book of your religion ? (abrahamic religion only)

I RESOLVED THE PROBLEM IT WAS BECAUSE MY MESSAGE IS TOO LONG. THIS IS THE PART 1/3.

(02-05-2014 08:21 AM)Drich Wrote: What part are you having difficulty with? If English is not your primary language then I will make an effort to not use english slang.

I don't understand your reasoning.

<snip>
The trust in scripture is not based on the provenance of the text itself, but on a direct interaction with God.

If we can't "trust" God then their is no hope for us anyway.
To put it another way, how does one verify the validity of a treasure map? {Do you think that the Bible is a treasure map because it can permit us to know God ?} Though an intellectual comity that examines when and where it was written, the ink used, the place it was found by whom?? No absolutely not! {If you speak about a real treasure map. We can't compare the Bible and a map because a map contain geographical information and books contain stories}.

Why? Because none of that tells you whether or not the map does indeed lead to treasure. (Again checking the validity of the map/content, not its history.) {This is right for a map but this is not the case for the Bible. The Bible is a library , I consider it like a library because it contain many books. We analyse the historical context for religious texts like Bible , Qur'an , Vedas etc... and non religious texts like traité de Versailles (treaty of Versailles) who was signed by the different parties in 1919 (If I'm right). How understand the content of the Treaty of Versailles without know the political , social and economical context in 1910's}.
One could have the ability to trace a map back to its origins and it not mean they will find treasure {Yes if he/she/they don't look the treasure}. The only true test of a treasure map is to follow the map and dig precisely where it tells you to dig. Like wise one maybe able to trace their bible back to the original author, but if one follows what it says and can not find God their book is useless no matter how accurate the translation. {How can you compare a map and the Bible ? How can you be sure that the authors of Bible weren't deceived by Satan ? (If God was real , it can be a possibility. Maybe that some apocryphas were true if he wasn't an illusion). How can you be sure that theirs goal wasn't to manipulate people ?}/[b]

(02-05-2014 08:21 AM)Drich Wrote: Ah, no. They like me is a term they describes a group of people like myself. Not really slang, just not commonly used term.

OK

(02-05-2014 08:21 AM)Drich Wrote: Your Point seems to be predicated on what you thought to be a misuse of the term "They Like me." (Which was indeed a term you do not seem to be familiar with) Other wise I do not understand what you mean here.

I'm asking. How can you be sure that you don't believe in a lie ?

(02-05-2014 08:21 AM)Drich Wrote: The defination:
a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.

If God gave that person 1 milliliter of Humanity then it is to that milliliter in which he will be held responsiable.

Obviously the term as defined outlines one who is simply unsociable or has a tendency towards violence. One can be deemed a psycopath by soceity and still live a full and productive life. For one soceity's Psyco is another's Great leader or religious hero. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Bin laden, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, All were considered to be 'Unsociable and or has a tendency towards violence' In one soceities view.

Three of these 'Psyco's were great Christians.

I would like to say. These people have less possibilities to be believers. I will explain differently. How can you know if Adams , Jefferson and Washington were psychos ?
Someone who is born in Saudi Arabia is certainly a Muslim. How he can convert to Christianity , when we know that Christians are persecuted in this country ? How can he access to the God's message ?

Someone who is born in Norway is certainly an Atheist and Anti-Theist ?
This person can access to God's message. But explain me
what can encourage this person to read it if he/she live in
an anti-theist middle ?

PS : The colored words are mistake speeling. I say it because I think that you write too quickly.

(02-05-2014 08:21 AM)Drich Wrote: Through what is outlined in Luke 11.

OK

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: Don't you know what you have been argueing against?
Or do you just try and oppsoe what I say no matter what I say?

You don't want answer ?

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: You would know this if you spent 1/2 as much time reading the bible itself rather than reading about the bible.

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: You do understand we are speaking of Biblical Christianity right? And in Biblical Christianity, 'proof' of God does not come in the way of a book. It comes in the form of being provided direct access to God via the instructions provided in said book, thus verifying the book.

How can we trust a book who contain mistakes of this kind ?
How the said book can provide a direct access to God ? [b](Do you have another argument that Luke 11 ?).

(27-04-2014 06:51 PM)viocjit Wrote: You say that my example is invalid because establishing a relationship with God is nothing like founding a company.

yes here you are right , but this is only an example. How measure things in the domain of metaphysic ? You can measure the size of your flat in m² but there are not any medium to measure the number of madness of someone.

Quote:Therefore whats' the link between have an experience with God (speaking with him , hear him, pray etc... [I think that these experiences are illusions]) and founding a company ?

RE: Why do you trust the book of your religion ? (abrahamic religion only)

Part 2/3

viocjit Wrote:This is not a complete response.

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: How so?

:|

(27-04-2014 06:51 PM)viocjit Wrote: again through the Holy Spirit which is offered if one will humble himself and a/s/k as outlined in like 11.

(27-04-2014 06:51 PM)viocjit Wrote: So? appearently you were somehow able to cipher my meaning.. So how does a strong atheist like yourself cipher through a misspelled word if the word is completely misspelled and a different word (spelled correctly) is presented?
Could it have something to do with context and the EVIDENCE provided in said context?

No , this is only a remark. I think that you wrote too quickly.

(27-04-2014 06:51 PM)viocjit Wrote: A strong proud atheist like you must first be willing to let go his FAITH is said evidences, just long enough to put that very same faith into Asking Seeking and Knocking as outlined in LUKE 11. If one can do this as Christ promised you will be given a measure of the Holy Spirit (God Himself) to point you to your next step. If you are faithful to what He has given to you, you will be given more, and a snow ball effect will take place.

Atheism isn't a faith. I'm not proud to be Atheist. What reasons can I have to be proud ? Explain what make that the Gospel of Luke is an evidence ?

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: Answer: Did Judaism and Christianity borrow the Messiah, the resurrection, and final judgment from Zoroastrianism / Mithra? Many doctrines of the Christian faith have parallels in Zoroastrianism, i.e., the virgin birth, the son of God, and resurrection. Some scholars say that Zarathustra (a.k.a. Zoroaster) lived around 600-500 B.C. If that is the case, David, Isaiah and Jeremiah (all of whom mention the Messiah, the resurrection and the final judgment in their writings), lived and wrote before Zarathustra. Some scholars say that Zoroaster lived sometime between 1500 and 1200 B.C. If that is the case, the case for Christianity borrowing from Zoroastrianism would be stronger, but the fact is we don’t know when Zarathustra lived (hence the disagreement among scholars) and so this argument is speculative at best. The Greek historian Herodotus (5th century B.C.) doesn’t mention him in his treatise on the Medo-Persian religions, though Plato, who was born roughly around the time Herodotus died, does mention him in his Alcibiades (see Wikipedia’s entry on Zoroaster; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster).

Zarathustra did probably lived around 600-500 BC because the Zoroastrians think it. I don't know which sources they use to affirm it but I think that this is probably true (Can you imagine that Jesus didn't lived in the 1st century ?).
Even the Zoroastrians believe it but that doesn't means that this is true. If Zoroastrians lived around 1500 and 1200 B.C the theory fall.
I think that if Zoroaster did existed , he did lived between 6th and 5th century before Christ because Zoroastrianism is a religion with common elements for a religion of this historical period.[quote]

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: But establishing when Zarathustra lived is only the first step. Next, we have to establish what he actually taught (as opposed to what modern Zoroastrianism claims he taught). The only source for Zarathustra’s teachings is the Avesta, and the oldest copies we have of the Avesta date from the 13th century A.D. The late date for this collection of writings lends no support whatsoever to the idea that Christians borrowed from Zoroastrianism (the oldest copies of the Jewish Scriptures which we have today date centuries before Christ and the oldest complete manuscripts of the Christian Scriptures we have date from the 4th century A.D.).

Yes , we will be sure to 99.99% that Judaism wasn't inspired by Zoroastrianism if someone (or a group) prove that he did lived in 1500 and 1200 B.C.
But if someone (or a group) prove that he did lived between 600-500 BC. This is not the same story.

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: This looks to be another case of skeptics citing a pre-Christian religion, assuming that the post-Christian form of the religion (which we know about) has remained faithful to the pre-Christian form of the religion (which we know nothing about), and speculating that the similarities between the religion and Christianity are due to Christianity borrowing from the religion in question. It’s a philosophical argument without solid evidence to back it up. Have we any good reason not to suppose that it was Zoroastrianism which borrowed from Christianity and not vice versa? We know that Zoroastrianism borrowed freely from the polytheistic faiths of the region in which it became popular. Mithra, for example, was a Persian god who found a prominent role in Zoroastrianism. Mithra’s Hindu counterpart is the god Mitra.

That is the question. But I think that we must wait the proof about the Zarathustra's existence to answer and being sure to 99.99%.
I'll read the content of this website.

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: So here is a perfect example of your faith in "Strong Atheist evidence." In order for you to believe Zoroastrianism was the source of Judaism you have to believe the 13th century AD work (The oldest source of material we have on Zoroastrianism is 100% accurate.

How a manuscript can be 100% accurate ? we have Greek texts who were wrote in the ancient world. For some of these texts we have only manuscripts from middle age. That doesn't means that these texts weren't wrote in the ancient world.
I haven't any faith in Atheism because this is not a religion.

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: Why? The bible records many weren't.
That was the reason for so much of their striff and judgement (The books of Judges.)

The word trinity is a medevil contruct, how could they believe in the rules of a doctrine that described their belief, if said doctrine had not been defined yet?

Wow, I hope these weren't your best examples of your strong Atheist 'faith.' If they are you might realize your 1/2 way to being a Christian already!

The Nicene Creed is from the third century and middle age began at the end of the 5th century. Therefore even if the word doesn't exist the concept does exist.

I repeat that Atheism isn't a faith.

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: A red herring is another logical fallacy. This fallacy is where one attempts to introduce a secondary topic so that the secondary topic distracts from the first. Example:
You asked for an example of how experience can trump knoweledge.

I provided one concerning being burned.

Your response was to tell me a story about your mother teaching you the difference between hot and cold.

RE: Why do you trust the book of your religion ? (abrahamic religion only)

Part 3/3

(27-04-2014 06:51 PM)viocjit Wrote: How interpet it in the best way ?

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: not sure what your asking.

I'm asking how understand the Bible.1.Genesis did really happened or this is an allegory ?
2.Exodus did really happened or this an an allegory ?

If 1 and 2 are an allegory how understand the NT ?

(27-04-2014 10:44 PM)Drich Wrote: Why would God be an illusion simply because people understand Him differently?

God is infinate, so if we each understand a small/finite section of who/what God is does it mean God can not exist because we (Finite) do not have a complete understanding of an infinite God?

Again we are simply faithful to what we have been given over to understand. Because we are all alittle different our knoweledge of God will all be alittle different.

I can say that this is an argument who permit to say that we can't prove if God is an illusion or not.

(27-04-2014 06:51 PM)viocjit Wrote: I'm not a native English speaker (My native language is French) therefore I didn't knew that we must use the word so? to
make know a point in all contexts. I have only the level B1 (my English level accorded to European Language Certificates).

(27-04-2014 06:51 PM)viocjit Wrote: I'm only asking a question.
I don't think that this is logical fallacy.